II. The doctrinal system of the Ep. has been
most fully expounded by Riehm (d. 1888 in
Halle): Der Lehrbegriff des
Hebräerbriefs, Basel und Ludwigsburg,
1858–59, 2 vols.; new ed., 1867, in 1 vol. (899
pages). Comp. the expositions of Neander, Messner,
Baur, Reuss, and Weiss. On the use of the O. T., see Tholuck:
Das A. T. im N., Hamb., 3d ed., 1849; on
the Christology of the Epistle, Beyerschlag:
Christologie des N. T. (1866), 176 sqq.;
on the Melchisedek priesthood, Auberlen, in "Studien
und Kritiken" for 1857, pp. 453 sqq. Pfleiderer, in his Paulinismus (pp. 324–366), treats
of Hebrews, together with Colossians and the Epistle of Barnabas, as
representing Paulinism under the influence of Alexandrinism.

The anonymous Epistle "to the Hebrews," like the Book
of Job, belongs to the order of Melchizedek, combining priestly unction
and royal dignity, but being "without father, without mother, without
pedigree, having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:1–3). Obscure in its origin, it is
clear and deep in its knowledge of Christ. Hailing from the second
generation of Christians (2:3), it is
full of pentecostal inspiration. Traceable to no apostle, it teaches,
exhorts, and warns with apostolic authority and power. Though not of
Paul’s pen, it has, somehow, the impress of his genius
and influence, and is altogether worthy to occupy a place in the canon,
after his Epistles, or between them and the Catholic Epistles.
Pauline in spirit, it is catholic or encyclical in its aim.12101210 See notes at the end of the
section.

Contents.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is not an ordinary
letter. It has, indeed, the direct personal appeals, closing messages,
and salutations of a letter; but it is more, it is a homily, or rather
a theological discourse, aiming to strengthen the readers in their
Christian faith, and to protect them against the danger of apostasy
from Christianity. It is a profound argument for the superiority of
Christ over the angels, over Moses, and over the Levitical priesthood,
and for the finality of the second covenant. It unfolds far more fully
than any other book the great idea of the eternal priesthood and
sacrifice of Christ, offered once and forever for the redemption of the
world, as distinct from the national and transient character of the
Mosaic priesthood and the ever-repeated sacrifices of the Tabernacle
and the Temple. The author draws his arguments from the Old Testament
itself, showing that, by its whole character and express declarations,
it is a preparatory dispensation for the gospel salvation, a
significant type and prophecy of Christianity, and hence destined to
pass away like a transient shadow of the abiding substance. He implies
that the Mosaic oeconomy was still existing, with its priests and daily
sacrifices, but in process of decay, and looks forward to the fearful
judgment which a few years, afterward destroyed the Temple forever.12111211Heb. 9:8, "while as the first
tabernacle is yet standing" (τῆς
πρώτης
σκηνῆς
ἐχούσης
στάσιν);
9:6, "the priests go in continually" (εἰσίασιν, not went in,
as in the E. V.); 8:4; 13:10; 6:8; 8:13; 10:25, 27; 12:27. Those who
assign the composition to a time after the destruction of
Jerusalem, deprive the present tenses of their natural import and
proper effect. He
interweaves pathetic admonitions and precious consolations with
doctrinal expositions, and every exhortation leads him to a new
exposition. Paul puts the hortatory part usually at the end.

The author undoubtedly belonged to the Pauline
school, which emphasized the great distinction between the Old and the
New Covenant; while yet fully acknowledging the divine origin and
paedagogic use of the former. But he brings out the superiority of
Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice to the Mosaic
priesthood and sacrifice; while Paul dwells mainly on the distinction
between the law and the gospel. He lays chief stress on faith, but he
presents it in its general aspect as trust in God, in its prospective
reference to the future and invisible, and in its connection with hope
and perseverance under suffering; while Paul describes faith, in its
specific evangelical character, as a hearty trust in Christ and his
atoning merits, and in its justifying effect, in opposition to
legalistic reliance on works. Faith is defined, or at least described,
as "assurance (ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for, a conviction
(ἔλεγχος) of things not seen" (11:1). This applies to the Old Testament as
well as the New, and hence appropriately opens the catalogue of
patriarchs and prophets, who encourage Christian believers in their
conflict; but they are to look still more to Jesus as "the author and
perfecter of our faith" (12:2), who
is, after all, the unchanging object of our faith, "the same yesterday,
and to-day, and for ever" (13:8).

The Epistle is eminently Christological. It
resembles in this respect Colossians and Philippians, and forms a
stepping-stone to the Christology of John. From the sublime description
of the exaltation and majesty of Christ in Heb. 1:1–4 (comp. Col. 1:15–20), there is only one step to the
prologue of the fourth Gospel. The exposition of the high priesthood of
Christ reminds one of the sacerdotal prayer (John 17).

The use of proof-texts from the Old Testament
seems at times contrary to the obvious historical import of the
passage, but is always ingenious, and was, no doubt, convincing to
Jewish readers. The writer does not distinguish between typical and
direct prophecies. He recognizes the typical, or rather antitypical,
character of the Tabernacle and its services, as reflecting the
archetype seen by Moses in the mount, but all the Messianic prophecies
are explained as direct (Heb. 1:5–14;
2:11–13; 10:5–10). He betrays throughout a high order of
Greek culture, profound knowledge of the Greek Scriptures, and the
symbolical import of the Mosaic worship.12121212 The charge of partial
ignorance of the Jewish ritual is unfounded, and can therefore not be
made an argument either for or against the Pauline authorship. In the
genuine text of Heb. 10:11, the high priest is not mentioned,
but the priest (ἱερεύς), and in 7:27 the high priest is not asserted to offer
daily sacrifice, but to need daily repentance. The altar
of incense is placed in the holy of holies, 9:4; but this seems to have
been a current opinion, which is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of
Baruch. See Harnack in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 572, and W.
R. Smith in " Enc. Brit.," xi., 606. He was also familiar
with the Alexandrian theosophy of Philo,12131213 See Carpzov, Sacrae Exercitationes in Ep. ad Heb. ex Philone
Alex. (Helmstadii, 1750); Riehm,
l.c., pp. 9 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 384; and
Pfleiderer, Paulinismus. but he never introduces
foreign ideas into the Scriptures, as Philo did by his allegorical
interpretation. His exhortations and warnings go to the quick of the
moral sensibility; and yet his tone is also cheering and encouraging.
He had the charisma of exhortation and consolation in the highest
degree.12141214 The Epistle is called a
λόγος
παρακλήσεως
, Heb. 13:22; comp. 12:5; 6:18 Altogether, he was a man full of faith and the
Holy Spirit, and gifted with a tongue of fire.

The Style.

Hebrews is written in purer Greek than any book of
the New Testament, except those portions of Luke where he is
independent of prior documents. The Epistle begins, like the third
Gospel, with a rich and elegant period of classic construction. The
description of the heroes of faith in the eleventh chapter is one of
the most eloquent and sublime in the entire history of religious
literature. He often reasons a minori ad majus (εἰ ... πόσῳ
μᾶλλον). He uses a number of rare and
choice terms which occur nowhere else in the New Testament.12151215 See note II. at the
close.

As compared with the undoubted Epistles of Paul,
the style of Hebrews is less fiery and forcible, but smoother, more
correct, rhetorical, rhythmical, and free from anacolutha and
solecisms. There is not that rush and vehemence which bursts through
ordinary rules, but a calm and regular flow of speech. The sentences
are skilfully constructed and well rounded. Paul is bent exclusively on
the thought; the author of Hebrews evidently paid great attention to
the form. Though not strictly classical, his style is as pure as the
Hellenistic dialect and the close affinity with the Septuagint
permit.

All these considerations exclude the idea of a
translation from a supposed Hebrew original.

The Readers.

The Epistle is addressed to the Hebrew Christians,
that is, according to the usual distinction between Hebrews and
Hellenists (Acts 6:1; 9:27), to the converted Jews in Palestine,
chiefly to those in Jerusalem. To them it is especially adapted. They
lived in sight of the Temple, and were exposed to the persecution of
the hierarchy and the temptation of apostasy. This has been the
prevailing view from the time of Chrysostom to Bleek.12161216 So also DeWette, Tholuck,
Thiersch, Delitzsch, Lünemann, Riehm, Moll (in
Lange’s Com.), Langen, Weiss. The objection that
the Epistle quotes the Old Testament uniformly after the Septuagint is
not conclusive, since the Septuagint was undoubtedly used in Palestine
alongside with the Hebrew original.

Other views more or less improbable need only be
mentioned: (1) All the Christian Jews as distinct from the Gentiles;12171217 So Oecumenius, Lightfoot,
Lange; also Grimm (sub
verbo): "Omnes de Judaeis sive aramaice sive graece loquentibus
Christiani."
(2) the Jews of Jerusalem alone;12181218 Ebrard. Moulton, on the
contrary, thinks that some other church in Palestine is addressed, and
that Jerusalem is excluded by Heb. 2:3. (3) the Jews of
Alexandria;12191219 Wieseler (who adds an unlikely
reference to the temple of Onias in Leontopolis), Credner, Baur,
Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Reuss, Bunsen, Conybeare and Howson,
and Plumptre. (4) the Jews of Antioch;12201220 Von Hofmann. (5) the Jews of
Rome;12211221 Wetstein, Alford, Holtzmann,
Kurtz, Zahn; also Renan, who thinks
(L’Antechrist. p. 211) that the Ep. was written
by Barnabas in Ephesus, and addressed to the church in Rome; hence it
was first known in Rome. (6) some community of the dispersion in the
East (but not Jerusalem).12221222 A. B. Davidson (Ep. to the
Hebr., 1882, p. 18).

Occasion and Aim.

The Epistle was prompted by the desire to
strengthen and comfort the readers in their trials and persecutions
(Heb.
10:32–39; Heb. 11 and 12), but especially to warn them against
the danger of apostasy to Judaism (2:2, 3; 3:6, 14; 4:1, 14;
6:1–8; 10:23, 26–31). And this could be done best by showing
the infinite superiority of Christianity, and the awful guilt of
neglecting so great a salvation.

Strange that but thirty years after the
resurrection and the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, there should
have been such a danger of apostasy in the very mother church of
Christendom. And yet not strange, if we realize the condition of
things, between 60 and 70. The Christians in Jerusalem were the most
conservative of all believers, and adhered as closely as possible to
the traditions of their fathers. They were contented with the
elementary doctrines, and needed to be pressed on "unto perfection"
(5:12; 6:1–4). The Epistle of James represents
their doctrinal stand-point. The strange advice which he gave to his
brother Paul, on his last visit, reflects their timidity and
narrowness. Although numbered by "myriads," they made no attempt in
that critical moment to rescue the great apostle from the hands of the
fanatical Jews; they were "all zealous for the law," and afraid of the
radicalism of Paul on hearing that he was teaching the Jews of the
Dispersion "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children, neither to walk after the customs" ( Acts 21:20,
21).

They hoped against hope for the conversion of
their people. When that hope vanished more and more, when some of their
teachers had suffered martyrdom (Heb. 13:7), when James, their revered leader, was
stoned by the Jews (62), and when the patriotic movement for the
deliverance of Palestine from the hated yoke of the heathen Romans rose
higher and higher, till it burst out at last in open rebellion (66), it
was very natural that those timid Christians should feel strongly
tempted to apostatize from the poor, persecuted sect to the national
religion, which they at heart still believed to be the best part of
Christianity. The solemn services of the Temple, the ritual pomp and
splendor of the Aaronic priesthood, the daily sacrifices, and all the
sacred associations of the past had still a great charm for them, and
allured them to their embrace. The danger was very strong, and the
warning of the Epistle fearfully solemn.

Similar dangers have occurred again and again in
critical periods of history.

Time and Place of Composition.

The Epistle hails and sends greetings from some
place in Italy, at a time when Timothy, Paul’s
disciple, was set at liberty, and the writer was on the point of
paying, with Timothy, a visit to his readers (13:23,
24). The passage, "Remember
them that are in bonds, as bound with them" (13:3), does not necessarily imply that he
himself was in prison, indeed 13:23
seems to imply his freedom. These notices naturally suggest the close
of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, in the spring of
the year 63, or soon after; for Timothy and Luke were with him there,
and the writer himself evidently belonged to the circle of his friends
and fellow-workers.

There is further internal evidence that the letter
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), before the
outbreak of the Jewish war (66), before the Neronian persecution (in
July, 64), and before Paul’s martyrdom. None of these
important events are even alluded to;12231223 Zahn refers Heb. 10:32-34 to
the Neronian persecution; but this is excluded by 12:4, "Ye have not
yet resisted unto blood" (μέχρι
αἳματος). Harnack finds also traces of the Domitian
persecution. Still more unlikely. on the contrary, as
already remarked, the Temple was still standing, with its daily
sacrifices regularly going on, and the doom of the theocracy was still
in the future, though "nigh unto a curse," "becoming old and ready to
vanish away;" it was "shaken" and about to be removed; the day of the
fearful judgment was drawing nigh.12241224 Lardner, Thiersch, Lindsay,
Bullock (in Smith’s B. Dict., Am. ed., II.,
1028), and others, assign the Epistle to a.d.
63; DeWette, Moll, and Lange to between 62 and 66 (between the death of
James and the outbreak of the Jewish war); Ebrard to 62; Wieseler
(Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 519) to July, 64; Stuart and
Tholuck to about 64; Weiss to 65 ("bald nach der Mitte der sechziger
Jahre"); Hilgenfeld to between 64 and 66; Davidson
(Introd., revised ed., I. 222) to 66; Ewald to 67; Renan and Kay
to 65. On the other hand, Zahn gives as the date a.d. 80, Holtzmann and Harnack about 90, Volkmar and Keim,
116-118. These late dates are simply impossible, not only for intrinsic
reasons and the allusion to Timothy, but also because Clement of Rome,
who wrote about 95, shows a perfect familiarity with
Hebrews.

The place of composition was either Rome or some
place in Southern Italy, if we assume that the writer had already
started on his journey to the East.12251225 The inference of the place
from οἱ
ἀπὸ τῆσ
Ἰταλίας Heb. 13:24, is uncertain, since in the epistolary style it
may imply that the writer was at that time out of Italy, or
in Italy (which would be more distinctly expressed by
ἐν
Ἰταλίᾳ orοἱ
ἐξ ). The brethren may have
been fugitives from Italy (so Bleek). But the latter view seems more
natural, and is defended by Theodoret, who knew Greek as his mother
tongue. Tholuck and Ebrard quote the phrases οἱ ἀπὸ
γῆς and οἱ ἀπὸ
θαλάσσης, travellers by land and sea, and from Polybius, οἱ ἀπὸ
τῆσ
Ἀλεξανδρείας
βασιλεῖς, the Alexandrian kings. Still more to the point is
Pseudo-Ignatius Ad. Her. 8, quoted by Zahn (see his ed. of Ign.,
p. 270, 12): ἀσπάζονταί
σε ... πάντες
οἱ ἀπὸ
Φιλίππων
ἐν χριστῷ,
ὂτεν καὶ
ἐπέστειλά
σοι. Others assign it to
Alexandria, or Antioch, or Ephesus.12261226 The Sinaitic MS. and C have
the subscription "to the Hebrews," A adds "from Rome," K "from Italy."
Sam. Davidson dates it from Alexandria, Renan from Ephesus, where he
thinks Barnabas was at that time with some fugitive Italians, while
Timothy was imprisoned perhaps at Corinth
(L’Antechrist. p. 210).

Authorship.

This is still a matter of dispute, and will
probably never be decided with absolute certainty. The obscurity of its
origin is the reason why the Epistle to the Hebrews was ranked among
the seven Antilegomena of the ante-Nicene church. The
controversy ceased after the adoption of the traditional canon in 397,
but revived again at the time of the Reformation. The different
theories may be arranged under three heads: (1) sole authorship of
Paul; (2) sole authorship of one of his pupils; (3) joint authorship of
Paul and one of his pupils. Among the pupils again the views are
subdivided between Luke, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Silvanus, and
Apollos.12271227 For the patristic testimonies,
I refer to the collection in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 272-288;
for a candid and exhaustive discussion of the whole question, to
Bleek’s large Com., I., 82-272; also to
Alford’s Com., vol iv., Part I., pp.
1-62

1. The Pauline Authorship
was the prevailing opinion of the church from the fourth century to the
eighteenth, with the exception of the Reformers, and was once almost an
article of faith, but has now very few defenders among scholars.12281228 Von Hofmann (of Erlangen) is
almost the only one in Germany; Bishop Wordsworth and Dr. Kay in
England. Among the older defenders of the Pauline authorship we mention
Owen (1668), Mill (1707), Carpzov (1750), Bengel (1752). Sykes (1755),
Andr. Cramer (1757), Storr (1789), and especially the learned and acute
Roman Catholic scholar, Hug, in his Einleitung. It
rests on the following arguments:

(a) The unanimous tradition of the Eastern
church, to which the letter was in all probability directed; yet with
the important qualification which weakens the force of this testimony,
that there was a widely prevailing perception of a difference of style,
and consequent supposition of a Hebrew original, of which there is no
historic basis whatever. Clement of Alexandria ascribed the Greek
composition to Luke.12291229 Dr. Biesenthal has, by a
retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory
in "Das Trostschreiben des
Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878.
But, of course, this is no argument any more than
Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the entire New
Testament. Such happy phrases as πολυμερῶς
καὶ
πολυτρόπως
(Heb.1:1) and ἔμαθεν
ἐφ’ ὧν
ἔπαθεν
τὴν
ὑπακοήν (5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all. Origen observes the greater purity of the
Greek style,12301230συνθέσει
τῆς λέξεως
ἐλληνικ–ϊωτέ–ͅϊρα. Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. and mentions Luke and Clement, besides Paul,
as possible authors, but confesses his own ignorance.12311231τίς
δὲ ὁ
γράψας τὴν
ἐπιστολὴν,
τὸ μὲν
ἀληθὲς
θεὸς
οἷδεν.

(b) The mention of Timothy and the
reference to a release from captivity (Heb. 13:23) point to Paul. Not necessarily, but
only to the circle of Paul. The alleged reference to
Paul’s own captivity in 10:34 rests on a false reading (δεσμοῖς
μου, E.
V., "in my bonds," instead of the one now generally adopted, τοῖς
δεσμίοις, "those that were in bonds"). Nor
does the request 13:18, 19,
imply that the writer was a prisoner at the time of composition; for
13:23 rather
points to his freedom, as he expected, shortly to see his readers in
company with Timothy.

(c) The agreement of the Epistle with
Paul’s system of doctrine, the tone of apostolic
authority, and the depth and unction which raises the Epistle to a par
with his genuine writings. But all that can be said in praise of this
wonderful Epistle at best proves only its inspiration and canonicity,
which must be extended beyond the circle of the apostles so as to
embrace the writings of Luke, Mark, James, and Jude.

2. The Non-Pauline
Authorship is supported by the following arguments:

(a) The Western tradition, both Roman and
North African, down to the time of Augustin, is decidedly against the
Pauline authorship. This has all the more weight from the fact that the
earliest traces of the Epistle to the Hebrews are found in the Roman
church, where it was known before the close of the first century.
Clement of Rome makes very extensive use of it, but nowhere under the
name of Paul. The Muratorian Canon enumerates only thirteen Epistles of
Paul and omits Hebrews. So does Gaius, a Roman presbyter, at the
beginning of the third century. Tertullian ascribed the Epistle to
Barnabas. According to the testimony of Eusebius, the Roman church did
not regard the Epistle as Pauline at his day (he died 340). Philastrius
of Brescia (d. about 387) mentions that some denied the Pauline
authorship, because the passage 6:4–6 favored the
heresy and excessive disciplinary rigor of the Novatians, but he
himself believed it to be Paul’s, and so did Ambrose
of Milan. Jerome (d. 419) can be quoted on both sides. He wavered in
his own view, but expressly says: "The Latin custom (Latina consuetudo) does not receive it among the canonical
Scriptures;" and in another place: "All the Greeks receive the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and some Latins (et nonnulli Latinorum)." Augustin, a profound divine, but
neither linguist nor critic, likewise wavered, but leaned strongly
toward the Pauline origin. The prevailing opinion in the West ascribed
only thirteen Epistles to Paul. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the third
Synod of Carthage (397), under the commanding influence of Augustin,
marked a transition of opinion in favor of fourteen.12321232 "Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos
una." This opinion
prevailed until Erasmus and the Reformers revived the doubts of the
early Fathers. The Council of Trent sanctioned it.

(b) The absence of the customary name and
salutation. This has been explained from modesty, as Paul was sent to
the Gentiles rather than the Jews (Pantaenus), or from prudence and the
desire to secure a better hearing from Jews who were strongly
prejudiced against Paul (Clement of Alexandria). Very unsatisfactory
and set aside by the authoritative tone of the Epistle.

(c) In 2:3 the writer expressly distinguishes
himself from the apostles, and reckons himself with the second
generation of Christians, to whom the word of the Lord was "confirmed
by them that heard" it at the first from the Lord. Paul, on the
contrary, puts himself on a par with the other apostles, and derives
his doctrine directly from Christ, without any human intervention
(Gal. 1:1, 12, 15, 16). This passage alone is conclusive, and
decided Luther, Calvin, and Beza against the Pauline authorship.12331233 Calvin: "Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod
est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum."
And on Heb. 2:3, "Hic locus indicio est;
epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,"etc.

(d) The difference, not in the substance,
but in the form and method of teaching and arguing.12341234 As Calvin expresses it:
"Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam
Paulum esse satis testantur." On this
point see especially Riehm’s valuable
Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on
the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz’s Com., pp. 24
sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the
Speaker’s Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what
nobody denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the
Pauline Epistles

(e) The difference of style (which has
already been discussed). This argument does not rest on the number of
peculiar words for such are found in every book of the New Testament,
but in the superior purity, correctness, and rhetorical finish of
style.

(f) The difference in the quotations from
the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews follows uniformly the
Septuagint, even with its departures from the Hebrew; while Paul is
more independent, and often corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew.
Bleek has also discovered the important fact that the former used the
text of Codex Alexandrinus, the latter the text of Codex Vaticanus.12351235 See the proof in Bleek, vol.
I. 338-375. Conveniently ignored in the Speaker’s
Com., p. 13. It
is incredible that Paul, writing to the church of Jerusalem, should not
have made use of his Hebrew and rabbinical learning in quoting the
Scriptures.

3 Conjectures concerning
the probable author. Four Pauline disciples and co-workers have been
proposed, either as sole or as joint authors with Paul, three with some
support in tradition—Barnabas, Luke, and
Clement—one without any Apollos. Silvanus also has a
few advocates.12361236 Of the other friends of Paul,
Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas,
Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus
Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or
Silas, is favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm
(890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34,
40; 16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.

(a) Barnabas.12371237 Tertullian, Ullmann, Wieseler,
Thiersch, Ritschl, Renan, Zahn. W. R. Smith (in the "Enc. Brit.")
likewise leans to the Barnabas hypothesis. He has in his favor the
tradition of the African church (at least Tertullian), his Levitical
training, his intimacy with Paul, his close relation to the church in
Jerusalem, and his almost apostolic authority. As the υἱὸς
παρακλήσεως(Acts 4:36), he may have written the λόγος
παρακλήσεως(Heb. 13:22). But in this case he cannot be the
author of the Epistle which goes by his name, and which, although
belonging to the Pauline and strongly anti-Judaizing tendency, is yet
far inferior to Hebrews in spirit and wisdom. Moreover, Barnabas was a
primitive disciple, and cannot be included in the second generation
(2:3).

(b) Luke.12381238 Clement of Alexandria (who,
however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin,
Grotius, Crell, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard
supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of
Paul, who suggested the general plan and leading ideas. This is the
most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for
the doctrinal differences. He answers the
description of 2:3, writes
pure Greek, and has many affinities in style.12391239 This linguistic argument has
been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched
analogies. See the strictures of Lünemann, pp.
24-31. But against him is the
fact that the author of Hebrews was, no doubt, a native Jew, while Luke
was a Gentile (Col. 4:11, 14).
This objection, however, ceases in a measure if Luke wrote in the name
and under the instruction of Paul.

(c) Clemens Romanus.12401240 Mentioned as a subjective
conjecture by Origen (Κλήμης ὁ
γενόμενος
ἐπίσκοποσ
Ῥωμαίων
ἔγραψε
τὴν
ἐπιστολήν) alongside with Luke. Renewed by Erasmus and
Bisping. He makes thorough
use of Hebrews and interweaves passages from the Epistle with his own
ideas, but evidently as an imitator, far inferior in originality and
force.

(d) Apollos.12411241 Luther, Osiander, Norton,
Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange,
Moll, Kendrick, Alford, Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A.
B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until,
within the last few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have
turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm,
after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and
Silvanus, but ends with Origen’s modest confession of
ignorance (p. 894). A happy guess of the
genius of Luther, suggested by the description given of Apollos in the
Acts
18:24–28,
and by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12;
3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Tit. 3:13). Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria,
mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, eloquent in speech,
powerfully confuting the Jews, a friend of Paul, and independently
working with him in the same cause at Ephesus, Corinth, Crete. So far
everything seems to fit. But this hypothesis has not a shadow of
support in tradition, which could hardly have omitted Apollos in
silence among the three or four probable authors. Clement names him
once,12421242Ep. ad Cor., c.
47. but not as the author of the Epistle which he
so freely uses. Nor is there any trace of his ever having been in Rome,
and having stood in so close a relationship to the Hebrew Christians in
Palestine.

The learned discussion of modern divines has led
to no certain and unanimous conclusion, but is, nevertheless, very
valuable, and sheds light in different directions. The following points
may be regarded as made certain, or at least in the highest degree
probable: the author of Hebrews was a Jew by birth; a Hellenist, not a
Palestinian; thoroughly at home in the Greek Scriptures (less so, if at
all, in the Hebrew original); familiar with the Alexandrian Jewish
theology (less so, if at all, with the rabbinical learning of
Palestine); a pupil of the apostles (not himself an apostle); an
independent disciple and coworker of Paul; a friend of Timothy; in
close relation with the Hebrew Christians of Palestine, and, when he
wrote, on the point of visiting them; an inspired man of apostolic
insight, power, and authority, and hence worthy of a position in the
canon as "the great unknown."

Beyond these marks we cannot go with safety. The
writer purposely withholds his name. The arguments for Barnabas, Luke,
and Apollos, as well as the objections against them, are equally
strong, and we have no data to decide between them, not to mention
other less known workers of the apostolic age. We must still confess
with Origen that God only knows the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

Notes.

I.—The Position of Hebrews in the New Testament. In the old Greek
MSS. (א, B, C, D) the Epistle to the
Hebrews stands before the Pastoral Epistles, as being an acknowledged
letter of Paul. This order has, perhaps, a chronological value, and is
followed in the critical editions Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort), although Westcott and Hort regard the Pastoral
Epistles as Pauline, and the Ep. to the Hebrews as un-Pauline. See
their Gr. Test., vol. II., 321.

But in the Latin and English Bibles, Hebrews
stands more appropriately at the close of the Pauline Epistles,
and immediately precedes the Catholic Epistles.

Luther, who had some doctrinal objections to
Hebrews and James, took the liberty of putting them after the Epistles
of Peter and John, and making them the last Epistles except Jude. He
misunderstood Heb.
6:4–6; 10:26, 27; 12:17, as excluding the possibility of a
second repentance and pardon after baptism, and called these passages,
"hard knots" that ran counter to all the Gospels and Epistles of Paul;
but, apart from this, he declared Hebrews to be, "an Epistle of
exquisite beauty, discussing from Scripture, with masterly skill and
thoroughness, the priesthood of Christ, and interpreting on this point
the Old Testament with great richness and acuteness."

The English Revisers retained, without any
documentary evidence, the traditional title, "The Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Hebrews." This gives sanction to a particular
theory, and is properly objected to by the American Revisers. The
Pauline authorship is, to say the least, an open question, and should
have been left open by the Revisers. The ancient authorities entitle
the letter simply, Πρὸσ
Ἑβραίους,and even this was probably added
by the hand of an early transcriber. Still less is the subscription,
"Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy" to be relied on as
original, and was probably a mere inference from the contents (Heb.
13:23, 24).

1211Heb. 9:8, "while as the first
tabernacle is yet standing" (τῆς
πρώτης
σκηνῆς
ἐχούσης
στάσιν);
9:6, "the priests go in continually" (εἰσίασιν, not went in,
as in the E. V.); 8:4; 13:10; 6:8; 8:13; 10:25, 27; 12:27. Those who
assign the composition to a time after the destruction of
Jerusalem, deprive the present tenses of their natural import and
proper effect.

1212 The charge of partial
ignorance of the Jewish ritual is unfounded, and can therefore not be
made an argument either for or against the Pauline authorship. In the
genuine text of Heb. 10:11, the high priest is not mentioned,
but the priest (ἱερεύς), and in 7:27 the high priest is not asserted to offer
daily sacrifice, but to need daily repentance. The altar
of incense is placed in the holy of holies, 9:4; but this seems to have
been a current opinion, which is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of
Baruch. See Harnack in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 572, and W.
R. Smith in " Enc. Brit.," xi., 606.

1221 Wetstein, Alford, Holtzmann,
Kurtz, Zahn; also Renan, who thinks
(L’Antechrist. p. 211) that the Ep. was written
by Barnabas in Ephesus, and addressed to the church in Rome; hence it
was first known in Rome.

1223 Zahn refers Heb. 10:32-34 to
the Neronian persecution; but this is excluded by 12:4, "Ye have not
yet resisted unto blood" (μέχρι
αἳματος). Harnack finds also traces of the Domitian
persecution. Still more unlikely.

1224 Lardner, Thiersch, Lindsay,
Bullock (in Smith’s B. Dict., Am. ed., II.,
1028), and others, assign the Epistle to a.d.
63; DeWette, Moll, and Lange to between 62 and 66 (between the death of
James and the outbreak of the Jewish war); Ebrard to 62; Wieseler
(Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 519) to July, 64; Stuart and
Tholuck to about 64; Weiss to 65 ("bald nach der Mitte der sechziger
Jahre"); Hilgenfeld to between 64 and 66; Davidson
(Introd., revised ed., I. 222) to 66; Ewald to 67; Renan and Kay
to 65. On the other hand, Zahn gives as the date a.d. 80, Holtzmann and Harnack about 90, Volkmar and Keim,
116-118. These late dates are simply impossible, not only for intrinsic
reasons and the allusion to Timothy, but also because Clement of Rome,
who wrote about 95, shows a perfect familiarity with
Hebrews.

1225 The inference of the place
from οἱ
ἀπὸ τῆσ
Ἰταλίας Heb. 13:24, is uncertain, since in the epistolary style it
may imply that the writer was at that time out of Italy, or
in Italy (which would be more distinctly expressed by
ἐν
Ἰταλίᾳ orοἱ
ἐξ ). The brethren may have
been fugitives from Italy (so Bleek). But the latter view seems more
natural, and is defended by Theodoret, who knew Greek as his mother
tongue. Tholuck and Ebrard quote the phrases οἱ ἀπὸ
γῆς and οἱ ἀπὸ
θαλάσσης, travellers by land and sea, and from Polybius, οἱ ἀπὸ
τῆσ
Ἀλεξανδρείας
βασιλεῖς, the Alexandrian kings. Still more to the point is
Pseudo-Ignatius Ad. Her. 8, quoted by Zahn (see his ed. of Ign.,
p. 270, 12): ἀσπάζονταί
σε ... πάντες
οἱ ἀπὸ
Φιλίππων
ἐν χριστῷ,
ὂτεν καὶ
ἐπέστειλά
σοι.

1226 The Sinaitic MS. and C have
the subscription "to the Hebrews," A adds "from Rome," K "from Italy."
Sam. Davidson dates it from Alexandria, Renan from Ephesus, where he
thinks Barnabas was at that time with some fugitive Italians, while
Timothy was imprisoned perhaps at Corinth
(L’Antechrist. p. 210).

1227 For the patristic testimonies,
I refer to the collection in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 272-288;
for a candid and exhaustive discussion of the whole question, to
Bleek’s large Com., I., 82-272; also to
Alford’s Com., vol iv., Part I., pp.
1-62

1228 Von Hofmann (of Erlangen) is
almost the only one in Germany; Bishop Wordsworth and Dr. Kay in
England. Among the older defenders of the Pauline authorship we mention
Owen (1668), Mill (1707), Carpzov (1750), Bengel (1752). Sykes (1755),
Andr. Cramer (1757), Storr (1789), and especially the learned and acute
Roman Catholic scholar, Hug, in his Einleitung.

1229 Dr. Biesenthal has, by a
retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory
in "Das Trostschreiben des
Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878.
But, of course, this is no argument any more than
Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the entire New
Testament. Such happy phrases as πολυμερῶς
καὶ
πολυτρόπως
(Heb.1:1) and ἔμαθεν
ἐφ’ ὧν
ἔπαθεν
τὴν
ὑπακοήν (5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all.

1234 As Calvin expresses it:
"Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam
Paulum esse satis testantur." On this
point see especially Riehm’s valuable
Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on
the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz’s Com., pp. 24
sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the
Speaker’s Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what
nobody denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the
Pauline Epistles

1236 Of the other friends of Paul,
Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas,
Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus
Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or
Silas, is favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm
(890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34,
40; 16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.

1238 Clement of Alexandria (who,
however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin,
Grotius, Crell, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard
supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of
Paul, who suggested the general plan and leading ideas. This is the
most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for
the doctrinal differences.

1239 This linguistic argument has
been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched
analogies. See the strictures of Lünemann, pp.
24-31.

1241 Luther, Osiander, Norton,
Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange,
Moll, Kendrick, Alford, Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A.
B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until,
within the last few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have
turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm,
after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and
Silvanus, but ends with Origen’s modest confession of
ignorance (p. 894).